Clinical Outcomes, Predictors, and Prevalence of Anterior Pituitary Disorders Following Traumatic Brain Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical outcomes, predictors, and prevalence of anterior pituitary disorders following traumatic brain injury. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Registry, BIOSIS, and Trip Database up to February 2012 and consulted bibliographies of narrative reviews and selected articles. STUDY SELECTION: We included cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies and randomized trials enrolling at least five adults with blunt traumatic brain injury in whom at least one anterior pituitary axis was assessed. We excluded case series and studies in which other neurological conditions were indistinguishable from traumatic brain injury. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers selected citations, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using a standardized form. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed meta-analyses using random effect models and assessed heterogeneity using the I index. RESULTS: We included 66 studies (5,386 patients) evaluating prevalence, 14 evaluating clinical outcomes, and 27 evaluating predictors. Thirty studies were at low risk of bias. Anterior pituitary disorders were associated with a trend toward increased ICU mortality (risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.99-3.21; four studies) and no difference in Glasgow Outcome Scale score (mean difference, -0.45; 95% CI, -1.10 to 0.20; three studies). Age (mean difference, 3.19; 95% CI, 0.31-6.08; 19 studies), traumatic brain injury severity (risk ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.20-3.86 for patients with severe vs nonsevere traumatic brain injury; seven studies), and skull fractures (risk ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.03-2.91; six studies) predicted anterior pituitary disorders. Over the long term, 31.6% (95% CI, 23.6-40.1%; 27 studies) of patients had at least one anterior pituitary disorder. We observed significant heterogeneity that was not solely explained by the risk of bias or traumatic brain injury severity. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third of traumatic brain injury patients have persistent anterior pituitary disorder. Older age, traumatic brain injury severity, and skull fractures predict anterior pituitary disorders, which in turn may be associated with higher ICU mortality. Further high-quality studies are warranted to better define the burden of anterior pituitary disorders and to identify high-risk patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".